1) The US has bought our entire Harrier jump jet fleet we scrapped last year.

2) Our Astute sub' plans cut from eight to seven with last not being operatioal until ional 2024.

3) All projects will now cost 59.6 billion pounds not budgeted 53.5 billion.

MOD says " the sub fleet will not meet requirements for coming years. ".

National Audit says the MOD been " hampered by a legacy of poor planning and performance,and that resulting cuts not value for money "

Defence Minister says that Nat Audit wrong to say that ovespend would've paid for the eighth sub but admitted MOD still has long way to go to give taxpayers value for money.
MOD " disputes that delay to the Astute sub programme will lead to a capability gap...that Ministers believe they can synchronize retirement of older subs with the new ones".

.." we need a new defence strategy to build equipment that will fit requirements"

appears to be Guardian exclusive under yesterday's (Thursday) dateline material obtained from MOD's internal audit under Freedom of Public Information.
Well worth read and especially the follow up/add on with photo of jet.

US DefenseNews yesterday reported a high ranking Marine corps official saying that there is no way that any US personnel will be flying the Harrier Jump Jet
fleet bought from Britain....they will be used only for spare parts !

US DefenseNews yesterday reported a high ranking Marine corps official saying that there is no way that any US personnel will be flying the Harrier Jump Jet
fleet bought from Britain....they will be used only for spare parts !

derek-L

Obviously at the request of our dear politicians, to avoid chicken fruit on chops.

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8892953/US-military-to-buy-Britains-scrapped-fleet-of-Harrier-jets.html

See Rear Admiral Heinrich's statement -probably been misquoted in other Cameron-loving papers.

Estimates for adapting HMS Prince of Wales so that it can be used by the Joint Strike Fighter are understood have risen from £500 million to £1.8 billion.
Millions have already been spent on studies to look at how to convert the ship after ministers decided to scrap the jump-jet variant of the plane in favour of a conventional take-off and landing model. But so great is the rise in total costs, ministers are considering abandoning the plan and reverting to the Ministry of Defence’s original proposals.
Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, believes there is not enough money in the budget to afford the £300 million a year to carry out the work over six years.
“We are certainly looking at what’s affordable and what can be done in terms of risk and cost,” said an MoD official. “If you have an unaffordable programme you cannot ignore it.” The move is likely to be embarrassing for the Government as the changes were at the heart of the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010. It will also heighten criticism of the Government for disbanding the fleet of Harrier jets and selling them to US Marine Corps for “peanuts”.Under the new plans, the Government is expected to choose the jump-jet version of the JSF, even though the take-off and landing model can fly further and carry more bombs

Just what are these fools playing at-it should be with building blocks and plasticene.

I am probably missing something obvious here, but I was under the impression that the two carriers were originally designed to take the JSF, so why would they need to be converted? Or, what aircraft did they expect to fly from them.

__________________
Regards, Bill

"To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?" - Cicero.

Millions have already been spent on studies to look at how to convert the ship after ministers decided to scrap the jump-jet variant of the plane in favour of a conventional take-off and landing model.[b] But so great is the rise in total costs, ministers are considering abandoning the plan and reverting to the Ministry of Defence’s original proposals
Under the new plans, the Government is expected to choose the jump-jet version of the JSF, even though the take-off and landing model can fly further and carry more bombs[/B????????????????

Thanks Jim, all is now clear. But what still confuses me is, if the carriers are capable of being converted to take conventional take off and land aircraft, why was the VTOL even considered in the first place?

__________________
Regards, Bill

"To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?" - Cicero.

For jump jet version of the JSF read VTOL. I thought the term "jump jet" was made up by the popular press. Officially it was always a VTOL.

__________________
Regards, Bill

"To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born is to remain always a child. For what is the worth of human life unless it is woven into the life of our ancestors by the records of history?" - Cicero.

It's a horse designed by a committee.
I think the committee must have been made up of idiots from the MOD.
They don't know what they want or what they want it to do or do it with when the rest of the carrier operating nations are settling for and building conventional carriers. Why would we want something that cannot operate any other type of aircraft other that VTOL when we have just got rid of all ours at a knock down price and cannot cross deck with any other carrier of any of our allies, and the Lib Dems don't want any armed forces at all.
Just doesn't make any sense at all to me.

1) RN decides it really really wants/needs a carrier and persuades the MoD when the yanks start to think about JSF that we should buy in

2) So we become a tier 1 partner for JSF, which has 3 variants:
A - land only
B - Short Take-Off & Vertical Landing (STOVL) so like VTOL harriers but not quite
C - carrier version for catapults and arrester wires

3) MoD commisions BAES and Thales to design a carrier in competition
Unfortunately UK cannot afford steam catapults (they cost a lot through life) and Electro-magnetic (EMALS) catapults aren't yet mature. So they ask both companies to design a STOVL carrier and a CATOBAR carrier so they can decide later

4) Later arrives and BAES and Thales ask which they want. MoD answer "STOVL, such that it can be converted to CATOBAR at any time hence"

5) BAES and Thales designers swear a lot

6) Time comes for the MOD To choose the winner

7) MoD says "Hmm, we like the Thales design, but we want BAES to be prime, so can you form a team"

8) BAES and Thales designers (deliberately) meet in pub and swear a lot together

9) EMALS becomes mature

10) MOD says, nice, we'll have some of that. Please now convert to CATOBAR, and Mr Obama, could we have the F35Cs rather than F35Bs

11) Thales & BAES (plus by now others as well) designers say "well OK, but we'll have to think about it, and can we have £80m to think hard"

12) MOD: "OK"

13) Thales & BAES start study (intended to finish at end of 2012) and start uncovering all the stuff that needs doing apart from just buying EMALS and arrester gear (sponsons; training; JPALS and loads more)

14) MoD swears a lot

15) Media pick up half the story and ignore that there are costs of going back to STOVL/F35B including:
aircraft up to $50m a pop more
aircraft cannot 'bring back'; so we will have to start dumping weapons in the ocean at up to £0.23m a go

16) Politicians (allegedly) make a decision when the study is only half done- announcement 10.30 on Monday

17) some WNSF members start typing (but are not allowed to swear a lot), so give it large about the whole lot being a thorough mess.

What's new!!

Stay calm, let the thing develop to maturity, whatever the outcome these two ships and their aircraft (of whatever variant) are not going to cost the £1.3trillion the banking industry cost us and about which comparitively little is regularily mentioned

Recently whilst searching for details relating to the closure of HMS Sea Eagle, the JASS (Joint Anti-Submarine training School), dockyard facilities and other related info, I was directed to some passages in the Naval Estimates 11 Mar 1965-66. The details I wanted were at various points in the debate, so I had to read the entire piece, but there was also much of interest on the way.

Perhaps members would like to have a read, nothing much seems to have changed with regard to the fortunes of our Navy.

I originally posted this on the Moral Courage of Senior Officers thread I think it should be aired here as well.
According to the defence correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, Thomas Harding,writing in Saturday's paper, the MoD accountants are considering scrapping the £300 million Crow's Nest project to fit Merlin helicopters with AEW radar to replace the Sea King AEW when they go out of service in 2016, but not until 2022 leaving an 8 year capability gap. Now they want to scrap it altogether leaving the new Darings, carriers and everything else that floats completely vulnerable to sea skimming missiles such as Exocet and Silkworm, just like the Task Force during the Falklands.
Which begs the question, can accountants be charged with culpable homicide?

Mitch Hinde

Last edited by Mitch Hinde : 08-04-2012 at 15:06.
Reason: Wrong thread title

I think that we should all sit down and and realise that the previous government has left us not enough money to realise our aspirations. Our gunboats have gone the way of our carriers and planes. Our youth who we look to are soft flabby and obese and could not drag themselves away from their computer games to do us any good. I think it's not just the armed forces that have fallen by the wayside but the country itself.

So-are we supposed to be heartened by Defence Minister Phil Hammond's telling the Sunday Times that:

"We have fixed the 38 billion pound "black hole in the Defence Budget"

"We are in a position to make the grand announcement that I have balanced the books".

"At last we will have a reserve each year so that if anything comes up we will be able to manage it "

"In terms of reducing the Civil Service,Army and Air Force, we should not have to do any more over and above what we have already announced"

I didn't see any mention of the Navy other than the reversal of the F-35 Jump Jet plans,meaning that the Frenchies apparently wont be able to henceforth land on our Carriers.
,
Our "Carrier strike capability" springs to mind,like if anything does "Come Up"...do we then hasten to belatedly start building more then ?!!!